Quantcast
Utah

2 men cited in trespassing on LDS plaza

Comments

Return To Article
  • randy
    July 10, 2009 10:23 p.m.

    Why do some people think they need to act that way? It seems childish to me!

  • Emily
    July 10, 2009 10:59 p.m.

    I am supposing they were trying to get on the news, and in the newspapers. And trying to stir something up because they are gay. And yes acting in this manner is childish and immature.

  • Andrew
    July 11, 2009 12:35 a.m.

    Interesting that they wanted them to leave but instead of just calling the police they first pushed them to the ground and handcuffed them so they could not leave. This is just legalized gay-bashing. Shame on the church security department.

  • Adam
    July 11, 2009 1:43 a.m.

    I agree, why do they think they need to act that way? Seriously - handcuffing and getting overly physical with two people because a peck on the cheek - that's childish and bully behavior for rent-a-cops. They were out of line.

  • Curtis
    July 11, 2009 1:59 a.m.

    Agreed, the way church officials acted was immature.

    Both sides were wrong on this issue, but each for very different reasons.

  • Dave
    July 11, 2009 2:02 a.m.

    This is a clear-cut case of religious freedom and property rights, but it will, of course, be portrayed in the national media as a matter of anti-gay discrimination. The Constitution is being twisted beyond all recognition to justify same-sex marriage and to now discriminate against anyone who honestly believes that open homosexual behavior is "inappropriate," even if the beliefs are religious.

    We are engaged in a culture war, and this is just one of the first skirmishes. According to many in the U.S. now, the Boy Scouts and Mormons are evil and homesexuality and abortion are good. Didn't Isaiah have something prescient to say about that?

  • Adam
    July 11, 2009 2:02 a.m.

    I agree the behavior was childish: getting physical, handcuffing and pushing a guy to the ground (a detail omitted in the Deseret News) is childish and bully-like behavior. It sounds like rogue rent-a-cops on a power trip - and that's scary. Really, all of this, and handcuffs because of a peck on the cheek? Yes, there was childish behavior, but it was on the part of church security.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 2:17 a.m.

    More hate. Did the security have to act that way? seems sort of aggressive and intolerant to me. Maybe all gays should line up on the sidewalks around the area during general conference and kiss away! Yes yes.

  • ralph
    July 11, 2009 2:18 a.m.

    More of the homosexual agenda. They don't want equality - they want to force acceptance of their lifestyle, "warts and all", on everyone, even on private property. Another example of the "dummying-down" of decency in our society.

  • Anthony
    July 11, 2009 2:19 a.m.

    You presume, simply because they were gay, that they were trying to "stir something up" and "get on the news"? Isn't that somewhat of a narrow minded assumption? Imagine for a moment what you would feel like and how you might react if you were approached by a stranger and asked to stop kissing or being affectionate with your spouse or significant other. I know I would get frustrated by it. While church security had the prerogative to ask them to stop on church property, try and understand the genuine reason for why they may have reacted and refused to leave, especially when confronted. I see nothing childish or immature about a man standing up for himself, regardless of whether or not i agree with the thing he is standing up for. I am continually sadden by the lack of tolerance and understanding so many here have for people they do not know, understand, or agree with.

  • Tim
    July 11, 2009 2:38 a.m.

    Childish and immature? Its always easier being ignorant and presuming things isnt it? Imagine how you would feel if someone told you to stop kissing your husband or wife. It'd piss me off for sure. I wish people would try and expand their minds a bit and think before they post on here.

  • candb
    July 11, 2009 2:44 a.m.

    i think its childish to assume that somebody would actually want to get arrested just to get on the news. there are better ways to get noticed. especially for a gay couple. stop being haters!!!! these people were singled out. showing affection for you loved one is not "acting out" randy. start to learn to accept people for who they are. not everybody is a sheep

  • Bot
    July 11, 2009 3:04 a.m.

    Just another example of outlandish behavior by homosexuals. They are just hurting their cause. Not unlike when they demonstrated outlansish behavior outside the Los Angeles Temple.

  • John C.
    July 11, 2009 3:38 a.m.

    How blatant dose this need to be. Those two new exactly how the church security would react that’s why they did it. If it wasn’t intended to get a reaction and get on the news then why didn’t they just leave when asked? Why did they become argumentative? At that point security has the right to detain them. And if they where forced to the ground then its because they gave resistance. But I’m sure the gay rights community will come up with more stunts in the future and then cry “poor me, those mean LDS people, how dare they stand up for what they believe in”

  • dj
    July 11, 2009 3:45 a.m.

    I want to know if it really was a "peck on the cheek," and I want to know what really happened to cause security to call police. Not enough truth in this story, from either side. I am sick to think how this story will be broadcast far and wide, but does not have solid facts - only one word against another.

  • to candb
    July 11, 2009 4:13 a.m.

    Actually getting arrested is a good way to get noticed for your cause; ever heard of suffragettes? The civil rights movement? Greenpeace?

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 5:00 a.m.

    I have read the past comments and have thought about the event vs response. First the fact is that the plaza is private property- this means that the owners of the property have the right to determine what is acceptable on their property. The pair of homosexuals obviously knew this and decided to push the issue with their acts. They are free to act anyway they want on public property but the LDS church acted correctly. When the pair used profanity it broke a second ordinance that is a public offense and a private offense.
    On the reverse if a pair of LDS members went to preach their faith or sing at a gay bar I would imagine they would be treated in a similiar way by the gay bar owner. I believe that we have to respect the rights/laws of private property regardless of the desires.
    bronx1810

  • More than a peck
    July 11, 2009 5:07 a.m.

    I gurantee you it was more than just a peck on the cheek. When have you seen only a peck from a hetero or gay couple. Public displays of affection are offensive by either gay or hetero couples. However gays want to force acceptance of acts by them which are not tolerated of a hetero couple.

  • Visitor
    July 11, 2009 5:30 a.m.

    I had vacation tickets to go to Salt Lake City and the National Parks, but I just cancelled them. I will spend my dollars elsewhere. Is this really 2009?

  • ed
    July 11, 2009 5:36 a.m.

    My brother works for church security. They should have just left when asked to and not tried to justify their behavior with profanity, that is why they got pushed to the ground and handcuffed. Dont to the gay pda on church grounds just to get attention.

  • get real
    July 11, 2009 5:37 a.m.

    First, to Andrew. I didn't read anything about them being pushed to the ground.
    Secondly, this is not a gay rights issue, it's a property rights issue.
    The owner of a piece of property has the right to ask ANYONE to leave for ANY reason. Get a motel!

  • @Andrew
    July 11, 2009 5:39 a.m.

    Your comment is typical of special interest groups.
    You read the story, embellish it to suit your needs and then pass it along.

  • Chris
    July 11, 2009 5:40 a.m.

    "Our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married." - Gordon B. Hinckley, Oct. 1999 General Conference.

    To the 12...I can see your mouth moving and I know there are words coming out, but I can't hear you. Your actions are screaming too loud.

    Same rules of conduct, uh huh.

  • JB
    July 11, 2009 5:42 a.m.

    Aren't there signs at the entrances stating it's private property and that certain activities are not to be done? I could be wrong, but I think I remember that being the case. In any event, these guys knew they were in conservative Utah and knew they were at the heart of the Mormon church - at its "Mecca" so to speak. I think they knew what they were doing and I think it was their intent to create a stir.

  • Thin Pancake
    July 11, 2009 5:45 a.m.

    It's private property! The argument stops right there. If a person is asked to leave private property for any reason at all and does not comply with the request the property owner has the right to have them detained and arrested. It dosen't matter what the reason, if you are on private property and you are asked to leave you leave. The reason you are being asked to leave is completly irrelevant.

  • GoodGuyGary
    July 11, 2009 6:05 a.m.

    "Maybe all gays should line up on the sidewalks around the area during general conference and kiss away!"

    I suggest you guys do this in Mecca.

  • Typical
    July 11, 2009 6:28 a.m.

    1) Engage in activity you know is offensive to the propeerty owner.
    2) Refuse to stop the behavior when asked by the property owner.
    3) Refuse to leave the property when asked.
    4) Make the property owner out to be the bad guy when he calls the cops.
    5) make the story better and spread it around.

  • Might not like it
    July 11, 2009 6:30 a.m.

    I might not like it if a property owner asked me to stop doing something on their property, but I'd still quit out of respect for their rights.
    I'd go home or get a motel:)

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 6:35 a.m.

    Anonymous,

    "More hate. Did the security have to act that way? seems sort of aggressive and intolerant to me. Maybe all gays should line up on the sidewalks around the area during general conference and kiss away! Yes yes."

    It wouldn't be funny if they didn't restrain them when they placed them under arrest and one of the security guards died as a result of a weapon being pulled by one of the men. We must not forget that these men had used profanity after they had been told to lead and their refusal was trespassing.

    It's clear that the profanity and their manner of behavior could be considered assault since it would lead a reasonable person to believe that they were unreasonable and dangerous.

  • Just leave
    July 11, 2009 6:36 a.m.

    Sounds like if the couple would have just left the property when they were asked, there would have been no problem.

  • Dixie Dan
    July 11, 2009 6:42 a.m.

    If this would have happened in Hurricane, the local police would have used their Tazer gun and subdued these two dangerous people.

  • Big Daddy
    July 11, 2009 6:47 a.m.

    People get a grip. The two individuals were trying to stir the pot. They know and so does everybody else. The Church is not going to accept your perverted lifestyles, no time, no how. Get on with your lives and we shall get on with ours. The Gays and Lesbians are trying to force their lifestyles on us and they call us haters because we don't accept their behavior. If we look at history, all the great societies in history fell because of homosexuality, Greece, Roman, etc. Get ready for America to fall into the same cesspool. I for one will tell these people they are the catalyst to the fall of our country. Somebody has to speak up against this perverted way of life and thank goodness the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has the backbone and intestinal fortitude to do so. If I am a "hater monger" then so be it.

  • ian
    July 11, 2009 6:51 a.m.

    They were probably pushed down not for just refusing to leave but for then going off on the people who asked them to leave. Loud swearing like that is an offense to others. These gay actists who were obviously just trying to make a point do not have the right to detract from the temple square experience of others. It is as simple as that.

  • Virgie
    July 11, 2009 6:55 a.m.

    Please understand that the church has a right to enforce it's policies. Whether the gay men intentionally went there to cause a problem (which I doubt),then they must pay the consequences regardless. If they did not do it intentionally then they should have respected the policies and property of the church when confronted and left apologetically and everything would have been fine, but they got ignorant. Gays get angry and they cause problems. Be who you want to be, but do it out of the public eye, especially if you can't be respectful of everyone. Have respect for yourselves. Don't bring attention by inappropriate behavior. Have PRIDE as a gay person and follow the rules that we all should be living by. Even Mormons would be asked to leave if they used such poor judgment, but we try to live a higher standard and still there are those who fight against common decency. A NATURAL CONSEQUENCE will ALWAYS follow an action. YOU can CONTROL whether it's good or bad. NOTHING can stop it. It's a law of God.
    His judgment WILL prevail.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 6:56 a.m.

    In order to avoid an escalation from verbal altercation to physical violence police (and private security) often have to take immediate control of the situation. I'm sure that the private security did exactly what they were trained to do within the law. Mormons find same sex public displays of affection as offensive, and they have the right under the law to ask anyone that is disruptive to leave their private property. Publicity seeking homosexual couples can protest to their hearts' content on the public right of way (the sidewalk), but this is nothing more than a lame display of disdain for Mormon private property.

  • Debate having sex on their table
    July 11, 2009 6:57 a.m.

    Re: ralph

    "More of the homosexual agenda. They don't want equality - they want to force acceptance of their lifestyle, "warts and all", on everyone, even on private property. Another example of the "dummying-down" of decency in our society."

    Private property means nothing to some people. Not only do we have to put up with their stupid votes when we go to vote but now private property isn't even off limits.

    When asked to leave by the owner they can expect them to swear and refuse to leave and to try to debate them on the Constitution and what the law should be. Why wait until the next election when they can harass people on their property and show them that they won't be left alone unless they get their way.

    The idea that everything is up for debate and vote is getting out of hand. What we allow on our private property is not up for debate or vote. It is not up for someone to refuse to leave when asked to do so. The first sign of hate is refusing to respect a person's private property when asked.

  • LOL!
    July 11, 2009 7:00 a.m.

    The usual rabid gays who hate heterosexuals are all out in force to push their agenda.

    The two arrested were there to start trouble and provoke and were looking to get arrested so they could get some press.

    Normal thinking peopel are not fooled by the latest silly gay hate directed toward heterosexuals.

    As for the gay posters to this thread, do tou get paid to spam open forums with your hate-filled agenda?

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 7:03 a.m.

    In Europe it's very common for two men two men to kiss on the Cheek... Whether they be straight or gay.

  • 2 Tim from ER
    July 11, 2009 7:04 a.m.

    Yes, but the kiss was not to his wife, or to her husband. It was actions that the owner of the property did not want on its property. This issue is not about gay-rights, it is about property rights that are upheld by the constitution and by current courts. Imagine how you would feel if a visitor to your house decided he/she wanted to disrobe in front of your children and you asked him/her to leave and you were informed it was his right and you could not ask him to leave. Well i am sure you would disagree. As should all owners of property would. That is what happened here. Does anyone think that this was not planned for and procedures put in place prior to it happening? I am pretty sure this was anticipated and the legal department informed the security department what was allowed. This is supported by the comments given by the police for the article. Not every issue is about gay rights.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 7:04 a.m.

    I see people leaving the temple all the time just married and and kissing... of course these people are straigh, so Why the double standard??

  • Told to leave ends discussion
    July 11, 2009 7:05 a.m.

    Dave,

    "This is a clear-cut case of religious freedom and property rights, but it will, of course, be portrayed in the national media as a matter of anti-gay discrimination."

    Most people understand that this is a case of their private property, religious freedom and freedom of association being violated. When asked to leave a person's property the debate is over. It isn't time for a vote or a damn debate. A person has the right to refuse to debate you and to order you off their property.

    "The Constitution is being twisted beyond all recognition to justify same-sex marriage and to now discriminate against anyone who honestly believes that open homosexual behavior is "inappropriate," even if the beliefs are religious."

    What people do in their own homes, on their own damn property or on public land is their own business but what they choose to do on private property must meet with the approval of the owner who may choose for whatever reason to ask someone to leave including random reasons such as not liking their shoes or tie. The reason doesn't matter. If told to leave then you leave. End of discussion!!!!

  • Cole
    July 11, 2009 7:07 a.m.

    I've been asked on those same grounds to not kiss my wife. It's true, PDAs are not allowed on that property.

  • Joshthebadbear
    July 11, 2009 7:11 a.m.

    they knew what they were up to. Hoooorahhh for Church security. If these two morons didn't know this was an "in your face move" I'll eat . . . well lima beans or something equally disgusting. Let me at em with my pepper spray too ! .

  • Can't wait
    July 11, 2009 7:11 a.m.

    to see how the courts handle this one-- the two men will sue and in 3 to 5 years the Supreme Court will hear it.. In the mean time the point has been made by the two gay gentlemen.
    I wonder if they would be upset if a Mormon family set up a picnic on their front lawn?? But then I'm guessing they are renters so they don't have a front lawn so it won't matter...
    @ candb-- get real, these guys were trying to make a point and I would guess it got out of hand when they decided to resist the order to leave the grounds.

  • Queers
    July 11, 2009 7:12 a.m.

    Forcing their agenda again!!!

    Why the LDS property? Its all a show to get more attention.

    I would have even approached the two if they were doing the holding, kissing and groping in a general public place. There's a time and place if they want to show their passion. Obviously these were just two queers trying to force their agenda to see just how far they could go. Childish IMO!!

  • re: candb
    July 11, 2009 7:13 a.m.

    you said: i think its childish to assume that somebody would actually want to get arrested just to get on the news. there are better ways to get noticed.

    Really? Did you not just see the spectacle at Mt Rushmore this week? Some in the homosexual activist camp have verbally attacked Mormons and vandalized Mormon property ever since Prop 8.

  • Here
    July 11, 2009 7:13 a.m.

    Take a look at the comments of this website on a regular basis and you'll see that the philosophy of "We shouldn't judge" is reserved for a certain few.

    Everyone else is apparently fair game.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 7:27 a.m.

    They went looking for trouble and they got it. I personally find it VERY weird for men to kiss, especially in public. That's why I don't live in San Francisco.

    Go push your lifestyle agenda in a more appropriate manner.

    This was a very calculated act, hoping to gender sympathy for their sexual lifestyle.

    Poorly done.

  • Disgusted Beyond Words
    July 11, 2009 7:28 a.m.

    I don't care if its politically incorrect, if I see two men kissing each other, it turns my stomach. I don't want to see it anywhere. I can't believe we even have to be talking about it --its so unnatural. The militant gays turn my stomach. Do your smooching at home. I feel the same way for heterosexual couples as well... Leave PDAs at home, or hotel room, please. Gay or not gay, it was just inapprorpiate for them to behave that way. It was a flaunting and in your face action. Grow up.

  • just wow
    July 11, 2009 7:29 a.m.

    They had the entire city of Salt Lake to go kiss and do whatever, and they chose to do it right where they did. So of course the church is now the bad guy. Well, here's a news flash for people, you can make your own choices, but you can't choose the consequences. Had they kissed across the street, you never would have heard a word about it. But they made the choice and now they got the consequence. As for dealing with immaturity, to the poster above who said gays should line up at General Conference time and kiss, way to show your respect for others.

  • Greg
    July 11, 2009 7:30 a.m.

    I cannot for the life of me understand why people get so freaked out by two people showing affection. It is an EVERYWHERE occurance to have a man and a woman show affection. On the LDS plaza couple pose for their picture kissing or holding hands in front of the LDS temple. For those of you who are open-minded enough to learn more of this I would invite you to watch a video (can be found on youtube) entited "for the bible tells me so". I'm a gay Christian (formally LDS) man who adores my partner. We get openly critisized and scorned if we happen to hold hands in public. We used to go dancing at Studio 600 club (a no-smoking, no-drinking club) but was kicked out by the owner, who screamed at us like we had committed some horrible crime. We were just doing an activity to enjoy as a couple. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean you have to be. I suggest you work on your own relationships instead of critisizing you can't possible understand unless you are gay yourself. Thank you for taking time to read this. God bless.

  • Chris
    July 11, 2009 7:32 a.m.

    So two gay guys who know that they are on church grounds, know that there are standards that even husband and wife couples have to follow decide to ptovoke soemthign, and when asked politely to leave, decide not to. That is like if you have visitors at your house, and they know of your house rules, and they go and break them, you tell them to leave, seeing they have no intention of following the rules, and also become disrespectful; As a result I have to protect my house and enforce the rules. They don't stop, so the cops are called, and the same result occurs. So you have people with an agenda trying to be the exception to the rule. No you don't get to change the rules you don't like. Especially when you are not correct.

  • What?
    July 11, 2009 7:33 a.m.

    Where does it say that these two men were thrown to the ground? Is it on their blog?

  • i was there
    July 11, 2009 7:36 a.m.

    I was there and the two guys weren't just kissing, they were full on making out and intensely "grinding". When the guards came up and asked them to stop they immediately started screaming 4-letter words at the top of their lungs. It was a ridiculous situation that this article doesn't do justice. If anyone has video, I hope they post it soon. These two guys knew exactly what they were after and they got it.

  • Gays have no respect...
    July 11, 2009 7:39 a.m.

    No matter how you look at their cause, life-style or perversion....the reality is their agenda has no respect for anyone or anything but their own self-centered, selfish and sad life. Non-contributors to this society what-so-ever. Unfortunately, they have been given a type of tolerance, under being politically correct, that a stronger stand against them may have to come. No easy way to get rid of a cancer......

  • New Sign at Main St Plaza
    July 11, 2009 7:46 a.m.

    No Gays Allowed.

  • DW
    July 11, 2009 7:51 a.m.

    If it was truly just a peck on the cheek, I'd say no big deal. If they were mauling each other, then that's inappropriate for anyone, gay or straight. I'm guessing the latter, since they were asked to stop and refused. They clearly knew exactly where they were, because if they'd just walked another 20 feet, they'd have been on public property and could not have been asked to leave, and therefore, could not have made the public statement they were trying to make.

  • brandon
    July 11, 2009 7:55 a.m.

    i spent over a year in iraq with the military, and you know what? even in a conservative place like iraq, men are always holding hands. and a kiss on the cheek? serious? that is grounds for asking two men to leave and then pushing them to the ground when they ask why? they weren't making out. it doesn't sound as if they were going for attention and trying to make the news.

    why is the church so scared of something like this? last nov. the church said they will support civil unions and benefits. obviously that doesn't include a peck on the cheek.

    hypocrisy at it's best.

  • Richard Judkins
    July 11, 2009 8:00 a.m.

    This is the whole problem that was anticipated when this area was turned over to the LDS Church. What people need to do is monitor how many times heterosexual people engage in this activity without being arrested then see if the ACLU wants to challenge the Church.

  • Oh how precious
    July 11, 2009 8:02 a.m.

    2 gays going on private property, belonging to a church that has standards and beliefs contrary to theirs, and they start an in your face display against church beliefs. Can't the gays stop being haters!!!!? Can't the people who claim to be so tolerant, and so above the rest of us, practice what they preach. I doubt it. Prepare for more of this. I particularly like the idea about the line up of kissing gays, during GC. Go haters! Just because God loves everyone, doesn't mean you wont recieve your just rewards in the next life.

  • Victor
    July 11, 2009 8:03 a.m.

    What happens if this couple kiss and hug, in a few years, while shopping at the mall being built across from temple square. This type of behavior leads one to a small camp outside of Munich, Germany. Nothing good came of it, except for the resolve to never let it happen again. I hope the LDS church will resolve to change. Otherwise who will shop at the new mall. I won't!

  • tommy
    July 11, 2009 8:09 a.m.

    Funny thing is that Channel 2 last night never said anything about them being handcuff. So were they or not? However, if they were first asked to leave by church security and refused I beleive the church has the right to act legally, be it handcuffing them, if charges are going to be pursued.

  • Larry
    July 11, 2009 8:18 a.m.

    To Anthony, Tim, candb and all others with one sided logic: Your arguments amaze me. You say it is OK for one side to stand up for its rights, but the other side has to back down? Even when it's on their own property? Hogwash! So if I have someone on my property doing something I don't like, I can't ask them to leave? And if they don't leave I am supposed to stand by and let them verbally abuse me on my property? So who is not respecting who?

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 8:21 a.m.

    Anthony has the only worthwhile comment on here. I'm LDS, but let's not be so narrow minded here people. If in fact all that happened was a kiss on the cheek, then I tend to think security over-reacted. Once again if that's all that happened.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 8:22 a.m.

    That's right, it is appropriate for heterosexual couples to display affection, and it's not for homosexuals. Homosexuality is inappropriate in all its forms. Gays are really only trying to turn Christian morality on its head anyway.

  • skr
    July 11, 2009 8:23 a.m.

    None of you know the facts of the case and have no right to judge. I was a part of a news story once. I watched the new that night on channels 2,4 and 5 and guess what; the facts of each report were completely different, and none on them got it right. I wonder though, if it had happened to a heterosexual couple, would we have even heard about it. Everyone is discriminated in one way or another but it doesn't make it O.K. to break the law.

  • This is how it starts
    July 11, 2009 8:27 a.m.

    Next come the demonstrations. Then the lawsuits. Then the politicians jump on the bandwagon.

    Sooner or later, some clueless activist judge will issue an order that, since young married couples are photographed by commercial photographers in the plaza after their marriage, the plaza is now a place of public accommodation, so the Church must permit the same behavior by LGBT couples. So the Church will be required to prohibit photographs of couples on the mall.

    And all we hear from the LGBT community is that they are no threat to us.

    Yeah, right.

  • Paul
    July 11, 2009 8:33 a.m.

    Everyone that added their comments were not there and didn't see or know what actually happened. Therefore most of what has been said such as pushing to the ground, a peck on the check, a stranger asked them to stop, stop being haters!!!!, etc. may not have been what actually happened. We like to comment on things like we were there watching the whole thing even when we don't know anything about what happened except what was written in the article. Lets all grow up and see if we can learn something from what we read. Thanks.

  • Warren Kay
    July 11, 2009 8:36 a.m.

    Regardless if the church security officers acted immaturely, if it is private property, they have the right to jettison homosexuals and not heterosexuals. It's not public property.

  • mk
    July 11, 2009 8:37 a.m.

    what is childish and immature is the fact that 2 people went somewhere where they knew that doing the things they did would not be accepted.

  • Hmmm
    July 11, 2009 8:39 a.m.

    More hate. More hate on the side of the GLBT against the LDS religion and anybody who stands in their way. If the two men were honest then they would have simply said, "OK", when asked to leave (it is Private Property). I understand they, the two men, got belligerent, using profanity and such, with Church Security before they were taken to the ground and handcuffed. Why don't any of you understand this as being part of the equation? I really don't think the LDS Church wanted anything to happen, yet the two men obviously wanted their 15 minutes of "fame".

  • Informed
    July 11, 2009 8:44 a.m.

    First where does it say it was just a "peck on the cheek"? Also where does it say the guards had them on the ground? Must be posted on their blog. One sided comments on their blog for sure. The point is they were doing this on private property. The LDS church provides a nice park for everyone free of charge. All they ask is that people act appropriate. Is that too much to ask these days? The partners realized they were on LDS property when they kissed. The also knew the LDS church is against homosexual behavior. Anyone who thinks otherwise must think that these two partners are stupid. If I was on private property and kissing my wife and the owner or their representative asked me to stop I would. Had they stopped there wouldn't have been tresspassing charges or handcuffs. People need to learn to respect eachother.

  • Linda
    July 11, 2009 8:52 a.m.

    These guys knew exactly what they were doing and that their behavior was not appropriate for WHERE they were doing it. Don't tell me they were surprised they were asked to leave the private premises.

  • Jim
    July 11, 2009 8:54 a.m.

    Why didn't they just leave when asked to? They were definitely looking for attention.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 8:58 a.m.

    Regardless of what they were doing, if they were asked to leave, they should had left and then make the propaganda. They were handcuffed and pushed them to the ground because their overly reaction when they were asked to leave. A man can stand up for their beliefs BUT our rights end when we are standing on private property. Church security guards had asked others in the past to leave and they had done so peacefully. Why not this couple? because they are gays and they think they can do whatever they want no matter what? If they want to be respected, start respecting others, in this case, if they are asked to leave, do so. And sorry about them, but PDA between two men is improper according the Bible. I think they did it in purpose.

  • @candb
    July 11, 2009 8:59 a.m.

    Martin Luther King Jr. and the freedom riders did it. It's not really childish to believe somebody would actually want to get arrested just to get on the news.

  • Jordan
    July 11, 2009 9:03 a.m.

    The issue isn't that the security acted out of line, it is simply that two individuals were asked to leave private property and refused. Thereby forcing the security to take some kind of action. The end result was always in the hands of the two gentlemen and not to be blamed on the security.

    Since when did we become a society who quit believing in the consequences of our actions. If any descent person was asked to leave private property and refused and became vulgar then they would be treated in the same way.

    I do believe most of us would be offended if asked to leave private property for almost any reason. However, I do not believe any descent person would create a scene or a standoff by blatantly doing the opposite of what we were asked. That is the childish thing that the two gentlemen did. They acted like children by doing exactly the opposite of what they were asked even throwing a little temper tantrum as we would call it if they were actually children.

  • Acceptance goes both ways.
    July 11, 2009 9:06 a.m.

    Why does inacceptable behavior become justifiable under the guise of "open-mindedness". Thank goodness the church is inclined to provide a beautiful property and peaceful ambience in which the public may partake. There are hundreds of other organizations worldwide that also open their resources up to the public for entertainment, enjoyment and learning. It is the prerogative of these institutions to define what is appropriate or not and how the distractions will be removed. This is not a matter of acceptance of a lifestyle. It is a matter of respect for the institution that is providing something beautiful. You wouldn't walk onto Amish land with Usher blaring from your speakers, why would you enter the plaza and do anything besides enjoy the atmosphere or try to learn something about the hosting institution. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO VISIT, BUT SHOW SOME RESPECT.

  • DSB
    July 11, 2009 9:07 a.m.

    I had to re-read the article after reading these posts. I didn't read anything in the article stating there was a "peck on the cheek." You don't know that any more than I know they were groping and fondling each other. After being "asked" to leave, they used profanity and became argumentative. From that you assume the cops "first pushed them to the ground and handcuffed them" in a bullying manner.

    Don't insult our intelligence by claiming the couple wasn't looking for attention or trying to make a point.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 9:13 a.m.

    I saw the whole thing, this was not a peck on the cheek. It was a full on makeout! Yes they would have asked a guy and a girl to leave if they were in a full on makeout as well. It was going on for a good 5-7 minutes before security got there. When security got there the men just started yelling at them, ans swearing. The men where trying to make a scene, and a protest. That is when they were handcuffed, and not "Thrown to the ground" as one of you mentioned. The men were acting like little high school kids. Why do gay people have to act like they are so much better than anyone else. That is my problem with them, not so much their sexual preference!

  • Whatever...
    July 11, 2009 9:14 a.m.

    I am sure they were doing a lot of kissing and hugging at the Indigo Girls concert. This couple knew exactly what they were doing. Trying to stir up the pot with another issue with the church. Shame on them for imposing their immoral practice on private property on LDS church grounds no less. Now its time to impose a hefty fine and community service to teach them not to do it again on LDS church property.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 9:14 a.m.

    Men kissing. How GROSS!!! Thank You temple Security.

  • Fairness?
    July 11, 2009 9:16 a.m.

    I was at the same plaza Thursday with my companion. We kissed next to the fountain several times and held hands the whole time we were on the Temple grounds/headquarters area. I was never asked to leave or stop this apparently inappropriate behavior with my significant other. Maybe that's because my partner is a female and I am male?
    So I don't buy into the whole "as we would have asked any other couple" b.s. the church is pushing in the media. This is clearly about homosexuality and not private property issues.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 9:19 a.m.

    They were handcuffed for arguing, using profanity and refusing to leave when requested to leave. These guys are just lucky they weren't tasered. If I see two "Gay Partners" conducting themselves in that matter, I intend to report it to the proper Authorities. Good job, LDS Security and SLPD.

  • M
    July 11, 2009 9:23 a.m.

    I feel that if they weren't allowed to do that neither should hetrosexual couples because maybe some people don't want to see them kissing and hugging in public. It can go both ways I feel

  • Common Decency
    July 11, 2009 9:25 a.m.

    Bottom line - they broke the law. However, there is more to their efforts than that. Look at the motivation. They chose the place to do what they did because they wanted to make a statement.

    My 12 year old daughter and I were at California Adventure Park waiting in line for the Tower of Terror standing next to two gay women who were being very inappropriate. I ignored them but the more bothered my daughter seemed by it, the more kissing they did. It was inappropriate whether or not they were gay - a man and a women even married should not have done that in public ten inches away from someone visibly bothered by it.

    My problem is not with gay people - it is with inappropriate affection in public. Whether or not this couple exhibited that, the location of their exhibition gives means to a motive of trying to cause problems.

    We don't send heterosexual couples into gay bars with t-shirts saying "Marriage between a man and a woman" making out - so why are they sending people to temples?

  • Dutch
    July 11, 2009 9:25 a.m.

    Private Property - Conversation Over !!!

  • Jim
    July 11, 2009 9:29 a.m.

    These people were obviously trying to cause a stir. It is all part of the good is bad and bad is good mentality that is now being taught.

  • Should have went to Jail
    July 11, 2009 9:37 a.m.

    From reading the blog, posted from the gay couples own words, it is apperant that they were publicly intoxicated and beligerant, argumentative (all behavior of intoxicated people) and refused to leave. They are lucky they did not end up going to jail. The reason they got their pictures taken is because the are going to be persona non gratis on the plaza, and if they are seen or caught on the property again they will be arrested for criminal tresspass.

    A question for the Blogger? How is this a civil rights issue. No one has a civil right to go on some one elses property and act as they choose, no matter what the act. Also, the city did not cave into the Mormon's on the Plaza issue. The city knew it was on the losing end of the lawsuit, even though they had some success in the 10th circut, so they accepted an additional $8 million from the Mormons to settle the suit and give up any easment.

    Maybe they suold have prtested their right to make out in public at the Galivan Plaza.

  • Just the beginning...
    July 11, 2009 9:44 a.m.

    of what's to come. My husband and I (his wife) gave each other a smooch (peck on the lips) at Temple Square and were reminded that PDA is inappropriate there. I agree. Our mistake, and we owned up to it. I wasn't there and didn't witness the event with the gay couple, but having witnessed the militancy of the gay movement here in CA, I would not be surprised that there was much more to it than "a peck on the cheek." The Church has become a target to be vilified and harassed for standing up for what is right. Homosexuality is deviant, perverse, unnatural, and ungodly, and we get attacked for saying so.

  • uncannygunman
    July 11, 2009 9:47 a.m.

    Richard Judkins is right, this never would have happened if the plaza would have remained public property like it should have.

    It does seem like there could be a sex discrimination claim here if the church treats men and women differently by allowing women to kiss their boyfriends on the plaza, but not men.

  • KKGAY
    July 11, 2009 9:51 a.m.

    This manipulative behavior from gays has got to stop. Playing victim will never further your agenda. It will increase hate. But this is what the gays want. This is why they pick people like Perez Hilton and Sean Penn to represent them.

  • can dish it, but can't take it
    July 11, 2009 9:59 a.m.

    This story exactly defines the currant status of gays/lesbians in America. They are not content to be homosexual, have their "relationship", and live and let live. They insist on being objectionable, offensive, and "IN YOUR FACE" to those who do not share their lifestyle.

    And then they have the gall to complain when they, by their own choice, PURPOSEFULLY act in a manner IN A PLACE where THEY ARE SURE TO ELICIT OBJECTION.

    Just as gays would find it offensive and objectionable to have Mormon missionaries crash a gay pride function and demand everyone repent.

    Average straight citizens do not try to bait gays and lesbians in gay bars, hotels, sporting events, establishments etc. Why can gays not follow the same rules and refrain from "tossing bait" on LDS property??

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 10:05 a.m.

    For the record I am gay. I believe this couple was purposefully and mindfully trying to make a scene, and I do not find it appropriate in the way they chose to make a point. They knew where they were, and they knew exactly what they were doing and they deserve any consequences for their actions.

    That being said, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBLE STANDARDS ON PDA. People so often complain if they see a gay couple showing any form of affection in public. This story was unclear on how much affection was shown and there are varying reports that I do not give any credence to because those people were not there. However, if they were asked to stop holding hands or stop kissing, fine. But a statement like "Two individuals came on church property and were politely asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior – just as any other couple would have been" seethes in hypocrisy it boggles my mind.

    If you do not like PDA from one couple, it CANNOT be ok for another. You either allow PDA or you don't. You cannot have both. I don't care if it is private property or not.

  • My home My rules
    July 11, 2009 10:09 a.m.

    My home My rules! That's what the trespassing laws are about. Ignorance of private property rules is only excusable until one is made aware of them.

    Derek & Matt can only be given the benefit of ignorance to the point at which they were asked to leave. Any action, other than immediately vacating the property in an orderly fashion, has no excuse.

    It matters not if everyone but Matt & Derek are allowed to “display affection” on the LDS mall, they were asked to leave by the owner's recognized representatives and that is enough. As I understand it, the trespassing laws have no requirement for motive on the part of an owner or their representatives

    I repeat this is a case of My home My rule and Matt & Derek broke the rule at least x2.

  • expect more of the same
    July 11, 2009 10:21 a.m.

    Unless Derek & Matthew were tourists AND not acquainted with SLC, they probably knew what to expect; I dare say, they also knew to refuse the request to leave & use belligerence to escalate the situation wold get the police involved.

    This behavior's been a standard in homosexual activism; thus I feel safe in assuming, Derek & Matt not only refused to leave but became loud & rude vocally & physically vulgar. Does that justify restraining them? YES!

    I am not advocating or physical restraints as the customary treatment for trespassing but if the owner wants trespassing to cease they need to enforce it by power of law. Though because of the “orientation” of these 2 I anticipate an escalation of overt homosexual behavior on the mall.

  • Visitor
    July 11, 2009 10:27 a.m.

    Good!!!!!

  • Be honest about harassment
    July 11, 2009 10:28 a.m.

    If, as Clayton Norlen reports Sgt. Snyder “...we enforce the law.” is true then Derek and Matt have nothing to complain about. If they had not broken the law they would not have been arrested.

    If what Clayton Norlen credits to Sgt. Snyder is true, “...once the restaurant asks someone to leave and that person refuses, then they can be arrested for trespassing.” The only people who were, and continue to be harassed in this instance is the LDS Church and the SLC Police.

  • DJ
    July 11, 2009 10:29 a.m.

    Maybe when those Mormon missionaries visit, I can throw them to the ground, handcuff them, and send for the police?

    In reality, I wouldn't be that cruel. Some of us have standards.




  • True Colors
    July 11, 2009 10:33 a.m.

    Yes it is their property. And yes, the LDS Church is extremely anti-gay and teaches its members to discriminate and to act in a prejudice manner.

    Hourly Hetero couples hug and kiss for photos on the plaza, the only thing offensive to them was this was a gay couple.

    They do not choose to treat everyone equally. Instead they prefer to teach ideas and promote laws that dicriminate and specifically target gays and lesbians to be treated less than other human beings.

    Another example of LDS Values and their "True Colors". For a group that has the potential to do so much good, they sure go out of their way to alienate non-members and cement a reputation of intolerance into the public's mind.

  • We warned you...
    July 11, 2009 10:46 a.m.

    Back when the city sold this block to the church, it would be a thorn in the heart of our city. All welcome? Only Heterosexual Church Members and those who convert--all others not welcome.

  • John Pack Lambert
    July 11, 2009 10:46 a.m.

    the men were politely asked to leave, but instead of leaving they got confrontational. They knew that they were in violation of policy. The Church has the right to ban all homosexual expressions on its property. The Church has a right to enforce its rules and these men were intentionally seeking to create a scene.

  • John Pack Lambert
    July 11, 2009 10:55 a.m.

    To the 7:04 commentator,
    They are also married.
    Beyound that, what exactly were these two men doing? I strongly suspect it was much more intimate than anyone has admitted.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 10:58 a.m.

    It's going to be funny in 20 years when all this seems stupid, and you are on a street owned by a homosexual man and you turn to kiss your wife/girlfriend...lets see how you react to being told you are being inappopriate

  • What's the difference?
    July 11, 2009 11:00 a.m.

    For all of you who asked what the difference between a straight couple kissing and a homosexual couple kissing, I strongly encourage you to go to your nearest community college and enroll in a human biology or anatomy course. Then maybe you can learn about the difference about males & females and how really it's just plain gross for two dudes to kiss each other. It's not religion....it's science!

  • @KKGAY
    July 11, 2009 11:03 a.m.

    I NEVER picked Perez Hilton. He is bottom feeder and a poor excuse for a human being.

  • Mormon Abuser vs Gay Kissers
    July 11, 2009 11:04 a.m.

    It's hilarious to compare today's comments about the Mormon seminary teacher (who was arrested for having sexual relations with his student) and the comments here about the gays who kissed on the Temple grounds. Dozens of Mormons wrote in to say the kissers were "disgusting" perverts, while hundreds of Mormons wrote in to say what a "great guy" the seminary teacher was, and how we should reserve judgment because hey, nobody's perfect. Wow.

  • @9:59
    July 11, 2009 11:05 a.m.

    No those people just harrass them on this board, or worse yet go out for an old fashion gay bashing.

  • John Pack Lambert
    July 11, 2009 11:08 a.m.

    From the two statements of those who were there it is clear that these people were acting to get attention. If the 5 to 7 minutes estimate is accurate, than none of the claims by some that they have similar situations is ture.
    There is also an issue of what else they were doing besides kissing. The suggestions of the observers tend to lead to a view that this was a more intimate situation than what is implied by kissing, and there was contact elsewhere.

  • Utah's out of touch.
    July 11, 2009 11:09 a.m.

    No wonder the world views Utah as a backwoods state. Seriously, the LDS security was a bit heavy handed. It's not like it was some full-on make-out session on the Plaza. I've seen worse than what's described watching the brides and grooms posing for photos outside the temple. That's kissing WITH TONGUE.

    Welcome to Utah, still 40 years behind the times.

  • Fredd
    July 11, 2009 11:13 a.m.

    They live in SLC and were walking home from the Gallivan Center. The Church agreed to a public easement for this very purpose. When the church realized they could not control behavior on a public easement they bought the property. Do you know there was a clause in the original contract that said if behavior on the public easement could not be controlled the sale was still valid? So all this was anticipated by the church. Read their blog for details. They could be lying of course, but it makes sense the way they tell it. And they were not intoxicated. And they were pushed to the ground and handcuffed by security. Its in other news reports.

  • You forget quickly!
    July 11, 2009 11:14 a.m.

    For a religion that was persecuted nearly to non-existence more than 100 years ago, the Mormons sure are quick to forget what it's like to be hated and discriminated against. Perhaps the die-hard Mormons need to go ponder and pray on the whole concept of love, tolerance and acceptance and remember what it was like when they were oppressed.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 11:14 a.m.

    Now I know how to treat the Mormon missionaries when they show up at my door repeatedly after being asked not to.

  • Albemar
    July 11, 2009 11:20 a.m.

    Very true, this store is indicative of the Gay Rights Movement. They are not going to be happy until they are treated exactly the same as every other human being. It appears that they will stand-up and challenge discrimination and prejudice at every turn. Hourly couples hug and kiss on this plaza and never is a word mentioned.

    These stories continue to re-enforce the fact that Gays & Lesbians are not welcome in Utah. Why does the LDS Church and it's members continue to falsely claim love and compassion for people they show constant disdain for at every turn.

    I have never and never will walk across the plaza, their square or enter their conference center. Why would anyone want to go where they are not welcome. But please don't be so disingenuous as to claim love for those they constantly discriminate against.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 11:34 a.m.

    Just when you think Utah could not possibly get any more ridiculous, something like this happens and you realize it can and will get worse.

  • @ Jack Lambert
    July 11, 2009 11:44 a.m.

    While I agree if those people who were "there" make accurate statements then yes, they were trying to get attention.

    Unfortunately, people all the time on these boards claim to be eyewitnesses (on both sides of any given story) when they are more just trying to justify their position with fabricated stories. The only people who can have a fair assessment of what happened were the security guards and the two men that were cited.

    While it is true that those stories are probably conflicting, it is really the only stories that can have any credibility.

  • Stenar
    July 11, 2009 11:55 a.m.

    According to the City Weekly article, the two men said at no point did they refuse to leave. They were never given that option by the church security guards, but immediately cuffed and the police were called.

  • Fight the power
    July 11, 2009 12:03 p.m.

    I seem to recall a black woman who once was asked politely to give up her seat on a bus and she refused. She broke the law by not giving up her seat in the black section of the bus to a white person. End of story?
    Nope. Only by standing up against inequality will people change the world. Being a sheep as so many one here seem to think the gay couple should have been is sad. Injustice, even if technically legal, is wrong period. Hetero couples kiss all the time on temple square and are not asked to leave, Newlyweds make out quite graphically all the time.
    I commend these men for standing up for their belief in equality. Even they did it to provoke, they were showing the double standards based on prejudice. They did the right thing, even if it was illegal.

  • DSB
    July 11, 2009 12:03 p.m.

    So easy for those with no standards to cry and whine about those with them. Guess what - MORMONS BELIEVE HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT MORAL!!! We live in peace with all kinds of people who engage in immoral behavior, including unmarried cohabitants, people who drink to excess, people who view pornography, people who are domineering and controlling. . . and people who are homosexuals. Why are Mormons obligated to accept what they consider immoral on their own property?

    If you have a homosexual community and heterosexuality is frowned upon, I promise not to come into your community and make out with my wife.

    When it comes to the church, there is no double standard - the single standard is appropriate heterosexual affection that does not go too far. If you think that's a double standard, good for you, but the private owner of a property does have the constitutional right to impose standards for his property - including double standards. You can do the same where you live, including inviting homosexual friends inside your home and asking Mormon missionaries to leave. If the Mormons won't leave upon request, I hope you call the police and have them forcibly removed.

  • Arizona
    July 11, 2009 12:04 p.m.

    Yep--just when you thought it couldn't get any more ridiculous, a couple of gay guys go onto church property to publicly display their affection and you realize that it can and will get worse--"gay activists" will see to that

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 12:08 p.m.

    Dearest Deseret News Censors:

    We love your lopsided view of the world and the anti-gay bigotry you promote with your editorial decisions.

    Yes, your anti-gay bias is that obvious. It thoroughly discredits this paper as a legitimate source of news and it exposes its owners as hateful. irrational and dictatorial.

    That shouldn't be a problem for the Deseret news and its owner.

  • to Utah's out of touch.
    July 11, 2009 12:23 p.m.

    I hope you are right. I hope we are 40 years behind the rest of a society bent on leaping headlong off a moral, spiritual, and ethical precipice. I don't think so, but I wish it were truee.

  • Seal it up and Close it Down!
    July 11, 2009 12:26 p.m.

    It is not Temple Square-it is a right-of-way--open to the public to get from one point to another in downtown SLC. It should have never been sold to the church in the first place.

  • What Would Jesus Do?
    July 11, 2009 12:28 p.m.

    He drove disrespectful sinners off Temple property with a whip. Security did the right thing.

  • Plaza should never have been..
    July 11, 2009 12:30 p.m.

    The plaza should never have been made. No matter whether it was: given / sold or whatever a combination of deals made between the city and the church.

    Buy it back SLC, bulldoze it and turn it back to Main Street. We all knew something like this was going to happen and give the church another PR disaster. It is already hitting the national press.

    A “little bit of Paris indeed”.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 12:31 p.m.

    Thanks for the reminders.

    I remember a vital Main Street in SLC. Once, walking Main Street, was great. Main Street was were I fell in love with what cities could offer. There was an wonderful absence of Disney like fuax themes, like malls have today.

    Weather was part of the ambiance of cities. A rain or snow storm might cause you to seek shelter browsing through books at Sam Weller's books. You might be forced to find refuge in the Mayflower. In the heat, you sought relief watching a movie.

    Main Street fell victim to Utah's unique culture. I've been to London, Frankfurt, Munich, Victoria, Geneva, Basel, Turin, Malan, San Francisco and many other cities. Only in Utah, could a church buy and construct a barrier, on the city's main thoroughfare.

    In Strasbourg, Cologne and other cities giant Cathedrals mark the city center. These Cathedrals are many temples high. People can drink a beer, smoke and live there lives in the shadows of these Cathedrals.

    In Utah, you life is under scrutiny, by the police of god if you get too near the temple. Utah will never have a little of Paris, its too provincial.

  • Rosa Parks Not
    July 11, 2009 12:52 p.m.

    "Fight the Power" is trying to make a civil rights analogy here that backfires. Rosa Parks courageously, and with aforethought, refused to comply with an immoral order on a PUBLIC bus. She was arrested and took her case to the courts and the people. She was not mistreated for sitting on a bus, but for being black. These two men carried out their "demonstration" (if that's what it was) on PRIVATE property and refused to stop or leave when politely asked by the property owners. No one has been escorted from church property simply for being gay. No relationship exists between the two scenarios. It is not moral for the gay couple to try to force their behavior on property owners--they have no standing and shouldn't have. The church (property owners in this case) makes no secret of the fact that it doesn't condone homosexual activity. In the eyes the owners (the LDS church), homosexual activity is offensive and not allowed on its property. And the gay couple involved has every right to bar representatives of the church from espousing their beliefs on the gay couple's property. A little mutual respect helps people stay calm.

  • To: DSB
    July 11, 2009 12:54 p.m.

    Guess what?!! The rest of the world thinks MORMONS ARE NOT MORAL!!!

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 1:09 p.m.

    The story is breaking nationally. The response doesn't look good for the Mormon church's gestapo.

  • Great PR for Utah & LDS
    July 11, 2009 1:10 p.m.

    Having first read of this situaton in USA Today I decided to check out the local paper. WOW! Keep on sticking your head in the sand and pretending the rest of the nation and the world isn't rolling on the floor in laughter. What's next the stocks or pink stars. GREAT PR for the LDS church - way to go.

  • Nothing's wrong
    July 11, 2009 1:14 p.m.

    If you read the story again, the church really didn't do anything wrong.

    I'M A PRO-GAY GAY!!!

    The believe the church is wrong in pretty much MAKING members vote for prop8 in california but there's nothing wrong here.

  • @ Rosa Parks not
    July 11, 2009 1:38 p.m.

    Obviously you don't get my point. They were non-violent resisters. They were showing the world the intolerance of the LDS church. They made their point, just as Rosa Parks did. She was not about buses, she was about how society treated her people. Being gay today or black in the 60's is very similar.
    By your argument, if I owned a restraunt and refused to serve a gay couple holding hands and kissing that would be alright. How is that different than blacks were treated in the 60's? Why all you homophobes just put up a sign everywhere that says "Gays aren't welcome if they touch other on my property." No difference from Rosa Parks' time period.
    These men followed Gandhi's example as well. They called out intolerance and have shown it for what it is. Just because you own property doesn't give you the right to be anti-christian and treat others as than equal. We are all god's children and we are all loved equally by him. Christ would not have ordered the arrest of these men. He would have shown them compassion and service.

  • WWJD
    July 11, 2009 1:43 p.m.

    He would not pull out a whip, that's for sure. You people must read a different bible than I do if you think Christ would hate gays. You people must also not really be mormon, because even the church (according to its website) says to never indulge in any form of gay-bashing. He would love these two men and do what ever he could to help them and alleviate any frustrations they might have. He would not throw them to ground (no matter how profane they were) and arrest them- "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

    Too many of you who claim to be religious need to learn some compassion and forgiveness.

  • Hmmm??
    July 11, 2009 1:47 p.m.

    I wonder how many people on here, that are sticking up these two gay people are gay themselves and are from CA??

  • DSB
    July 11, 2009 1:50 p.m.

    Bully for them! Guess what?!! If the rest of the world does not want Mormons on their private property, they can make policies against Mormons, and if Mormons are then asked to leave, they should leave. If they don't then the private land owner should call the police and have them removed or arrested.

    Thanks for not adding to the debate at hand, and for displaying your anti-Mormon hatred and bigotry.

  • morals
    July 11, 2009 1:55 p.m.

    I see some people are trying to put a negative light on this issue. Trying to show that the LDS Church is nothing but a bunch of hateful bigots.. But I disagree... The rest of the world that feels that homosexual behavior is a sin and immoral.. Will be happy someone is standing up for their religious beliefs and not caving into the gay agenda.

  • California reader
    July 11, 2009 1:57 p.m.

    1. Private property is private property. The church has the say of who is on their property and what behavior they will allow. It doesn't matter if the gay community doesn't agree with them. It is a matter of respecting private property.

    2. Unlikely they innocently walked through the property. Obiously they were trying to provoke something and make the news. Unfortunately, they were successful.

  • Not the same
    July 11, 2009 1:57 p.m.

    Race can't be compared to aberrant behavior.
    Utah is a great place, and I'm moving there from Colorado.

    Steamboat Atheist

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 2:07 p.m.

    How Christ-like of the LDS church.
    Makes me want to join right away.
    //sarcasm

  • Excused?
    July 11, 2009 2:10 p.m.

    I'm stymied by the sanitized wording of this article, especially the phrase... "after security personnel for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints excused them from church property."

    Excused them? What does that even mean? Were they ejected, removed, quarantined, immobilized, detained,or what? Because "excused" sounds like the kind of passive aggressive double speak that comes directly from the LDS News Room talking points. Not the crisp concise vocabulary of a reporter from a supposedly independent newspaper.

  • SS
    July 11, 2009 2:31 p.m.

    It's the Church's property and they can do what they want. I know if two guys were kissing in my home, I would ask them to please do that somewhere else. Call it closed-minded if you want, but it's still my property and I make the rules.

    As for calling Utah 40 years behind the times, I am so tired of that. Millions and millions and millions of people around the US and billions in the world believe that homosexuality is immoral - or, if nothing else, it makes them uncomfortable/squeamish. You may not like that fact, but it's still a fact. It's got absolutely nothing to do with Utah.

    I left Utah 20 years ago and have lived in four other states and two countries. Utah is not much different than anywhere else. You will find whatever kind of people you are looking for - wherever you go.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 2:34 p.m.

    It's not like gays come to your door during dinner trying to convert you. They don't believe being gay is the chosen sexual orientation. Gays never interfere with the romances of others.

    There must be a place for gays or god wouldn't have created gay people.

  • Skippy
    July 11, 2009 2:46 p.m.

    Private property is private property. If you don't follow the wishes of the property owner you will get cited for trespassing or have other actions taken against you. It is the law. It does not matter your background or status. That is not the issue here.

  • thats it
    July 11, 2009 3:23 p.m.

    I have had it up to here......next time I am voting for Prop Hate!

  • Eagle Forum to the Rescue
    July 11, 2009 3:24 p.m.

    We need a state constitutional amendment that would ban this sort of inappropriate behavior. Such public displays of gay affection should not be tolerated in Utah.

    Where is Senator Chris Buttars when we need him?

  • Demosthenes
    July 11, 2009 3:34 p.m.

    It is universally wrong when a person engages in behavior that is morally offensive to the property owner (and knows it).

    It would be wrong, for example, for a woman to wear a bikini to Mecca or for me to eat a steak at a Hindu shrine. It's the same here.

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 3:34 p.m.

    "According to the City Weekly article, the two men said at no point did they refuse to leave. They were never given that option by the church security guards, but immediately cuffed and the police were called."

    And according to one of the mens own blog (linked to in the article) they immediately started arguing instead of leaving, and remained there arguing for around 5 minutes before being handcuffed. I'm more likely to believe the blog than the City Weekly rag in this case, especially since the blog was written by one of the gay men himself.

    It's sad that the irrational people have arrived here now posting all sorts of stupid anti-Mormon messages. They can go back to the tribune website where they can downvote and squelsh any opposing viewpoints for all I care. It's one thing to argue about the matter at hand, it's another to preach hate toward Mormons just because you get a small opening.

  • L'difference
    July 11, 2009 3:58 p.m.



    I don’t like seeing the European male kiss and hand-holding, and the Mideast male full-frontal hug and kiss, but that is cultural.

    It makes me uncomfortable to see gay males kiss and hold hands, but we need to get used to it, and not be such ninnies about it. One day it won’t even make us blink.

    Of course there is public decency for everyone, so anything beyond mild displays of affection in public should be kept illegal. (Public park displays in Italy & France — yuck.)

  • Question for Everyone
    July 11, 2009 4:03 p.m.

    What other religion erects walls and barriers to areas in the heart of a city accompanied with a list of do not's and has people they dislike forceably ejected and banned from? Pretty telling, isn't it?

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 4:03 p.m.

    I can see how showing affection to someone you love is "inappropriate behavior" -- NOT!

    What kind of fascist baloney does the LDS Church stand for anyway?

  • Outsider
    July 11, 2009 4:38 p.m.

    I have visited your city and thank Almighty God that I do not live in such a theocratic place. I do wish Utah would just secede and avoid embarassing the rest of the United States. You are so intolerant of anything that does not conform to your really weird beliefs, you will do anything to rid yourselves of anyone you deem unworthy. So two gay guys walked on your "sacred place". I don't blame them for reacting the way they did. I really think this article sounds like it came from Tehran, not the U.S. And no, I am not gay, am not an "anti" or whatever you folks use to put everyone in their place. I am just a man who is embarassed to know that there is a place where religion has warped so many people.

  • It happens
    July 11, 2009 4:54 p.m.

    WE need to start calling the cops on our neighbors too.

  • the observer
    July 11, 2009 4:56 p.m.

    the guys were expressing love. This is a Christ-like thing to do. If they keep expressing that they are the true church then why do they not want people to not act in a Christ like way. Good grief! What would Jesus do? He would not have them arrested. Mormons are acting more like the anti-Christ, not the true ambassadors of Christ that they claim.

  • r
    July 11, 2009 5:06 p.m.

    You all know they just wanted a reaction! I know it, and especially they know it! In order to hug someone, you would have to slow down and stop. They knew what they were doing when they stopped in a place where they'd get a reaction. It seems that some gay people have become what they hate: intolerant and unreasonable. None of us are perfect, but could we at least have some common courtesy?

    By the way, years ago a hetero-friend of mine was asked to leave Temple Square because she was kissing her boyfriend. Instead of being angry at the Church, they were just embarrassed and did leave the property.

  • Homosexual Immaturity
    July 11, 2009 5:22 p.m.

    Private property means the owners can set the rules of what kind of behavior they will allow. The First Amendment doesn't apply on private property.

    The homosexual crowd talks about being understanding, compassionate, etc but if you cross the line that THEY choose they unload on you like a ton of bricks.

    This is because evil knows no bounds.

  • How disgusting.
    July 11, 2009 5:30 p.m.

    I just hate to see couples kiss in public, oh I am talking about hetrosexual. So if I am repulsed by a guy and girl kissing in public, then I am also repulsed to see gays kissing in public. I feel that public displays of affection are imposing on strangers, don't they have places where people can be in public and neck, like make out hill and such? They have nude beaches, I won't go there, well, I won't go to a beach, ha ha. But they have places where smokers can smoke, drinkers can drink and they need to offer a place for kissers to kiss. The church has every right to tell anyone to leave, and I don't buy it that these guys were acting like angels, as I don't buy that security acted perfectly either.

    Maybe this was not a planned thing, but based on the actions of the gay population, I would say that it was very calculated. Guilty by association.

  • Cougar Blue
    July 11, 2009 5:34 p.m.

    Is this the same web site that contains so many posts about the seminary teacher arrested for his actions? You surely couldn't tell it, the tenor is completely different. The Saints have a hard time accepting the fact that they judge daily, even when they don't know everything. Read the Trib account of this and some of your posts will seem very silly. Yes, we are a very bigoted people.

  • The Truth
    July 11, 2009 5:40 p.m.

    All one needs to do is read the majority of comments on this blog to see why the L.D.S. Church continues to be a third-rate religion in the eyes of everyone but Mormons. As the rest of the world - more and more - accepts and embraces the diversity of cultures, perspectives, and, yes, lifestyles, that make up the human race, too many Mormons (especially Utah Mormons) continue to be narrow-minded bigots in a Church, that, if it truly wanted to be taken seriously would recognize and condemn bigotry in all of its forms, as well as ex-communicate its bigots. Until it does, the LDS Church doesn't deserve to be taken seriously and, in the eyes of most people in the world, won't be taken seriously.

  • I smell California
    July 11, 2009 5:49 p.m.

    emanating from a great majority of these comments. Always trying to twist something into something it is not. I would guess that 40+ of these anti-Utah and anti-LDS comments are from the same person-multiplying him or herself in anonymity. Making them seem like more than they really are. A lot like the gay agenda-declaring that they are many more than they really represent demographically. Tell the world that 10% or more of the population is gay-when in reality it is more like 3%-4%

    Amazing how much noise this tiny proportion of Americans can make. Seems like a lot more sometimes, eh? Even more amazing how they are so bold in calling themselves good and the rest of us bad. Calling us the haters-when it is they that propogate hate at every opportunity.

    A lot of noise, but this too shall pass!!

  • OK
    July 11, 2009 5:51 p.m.

    To the visitors to Utah who have said that they had tickets and now have given them up, I call you out as liars. But if it is true, then GOODBYE! If your narrow-mindedness on this issue drives you nuts then you have serious issues. The two men in question were obviously doing more than just "pecking" on the cheeks. If they were "grinding" as asserted then they were obviously acting in a lewd way and should face jail time for lewdness. It isn't about being gay it is about proper public behavior on private property that is open, in a generous way, to the public. Why can't this be understood by all?

  • Whatever
    July 11, 2009 6:00 p.m.

    Unless these men have been hiding in a cave for the last year they were well aware of the result they would get from such displays on LDS property. They were obviously seeking media attention for gay rights and broke the law to do so. Low.

  • Ernest T. Bass
    July 11, 2009 6:13 p.m.

    The Church is just so true. Can't these people see that?

  • re: Ernest Bass
    July 11, 2009 6:34 p.m.

    I picked up on the sarcasm.

    True or not, the Church has a right to its beliefs and to set rules on its private property.

  • Numbers
    July 11, 2009 7:00 p.m.

    To "I Smell California," who brilliantly made the following comment a few blogs back: "Tell the world that 10% or more of the population is gay when in reality it is more like 3%-4%."

    I guess this 3%-4% number is supposed to discount gay people.

    By the way, for the record, only 2%-to-3% of the American population (and an even smaller percentage of the world population) is Mormon.

  • Hey Visitor---
    July 11, 2009 7:23 p.m.

    Glad your not coming to visit us-- we have enough radicals and shallow people that live here without adding another one to the group.
    What little you would spend would never make up for the bad feelings I am sure you would bring with you as well--- I believe you made a wise decision-- stay home.....

  • To Hey Visitor
    July 11, 2009 7:38 p.m.

    Utah makes most of its money on tourism, so you aren't helping any.

  • Mc
    July 11, 2009 7:41 p.m.

    In a public place the rules have to be the same for all people, but that is not true on private property. The Church can allow a bride and groom to kiss for pictures while telling a homosexual couple that they cannot kiss on Church property.

    FYI: The Church never said they would support civil unions in Utah. They said they would not actively fight them. They have been accused of lying because they did not come out in support of laws allowing civil unions in Utah. There is a big difference between saying nothing and making a public statement in support of civil unions. The Church kept its word by saying nothing against the proposed law.

    I sure appreciate the many people of Utah who are not LDS, but are good-natured enough to put up with our quirks and respect our beliefs even though they do not share them. We can all live in peace if we want to. Some people don't want to.

  • Utah is Great
    July 11, 2009 8:42 p.m.

    Mc, many people in Utah are not LDS. Utah was once the home of the Freedom from Religion Foundation.
    I've always enjoyed my trips there, and will likely move to Utah from Colorado. You just need to find the right town.

  • Nothing wrong with a chaste kiss
    July 11, 2009 8:54 p.m.

    be it heterosexual or homosexual. You can rest assured that this was more than a simple innocent peck on the cheek or even a lover's kiss, but nothing more than a contrived publicity stunt as a part of the gay community's well-thought out agenda to demonize the LDS Church. They know that as long as they keep yelling loud enough and long enough that Mormons are "haters" that a few will actually begin to believe.

    The security police put up with a lot and are not easily provoked-so there was more going on than was reported by the media. Any body that starts swearing and fighting is going to receive the same treatment-gay, straight, young or old.

    To all my GLT friends out there, get over yourselves. Nobody hates you or is trying to impose their lifestyle on you. You can do anything you choose to do in the sanctity of your home, bedroom, hotel, wherever. In reality it is you that would try to impose your lifestyle on all the world. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of the world rejects your lifestyle totally.

    Go and live in peace, but leave us alone as well.

  • re: Numbers
    July 11, 2009 9:08 p.m.

    No one is trying to discount gays whatsoever. The intent of pointing out the 3%-4% number was only to offer a whiff of reality. Demographic studies show that current U.S. population is comprised of about 3% homosexuals. Although gay apologists continue to insist that the true number is 10%+.
    Only saying that that little segment among us sure sounds like a whole lot more than it really is

    What is truly amazing is how much good the 2% LDS population continues to do in the U.S. and around the world on a daily basis. Now there is an interesting assignment: Compare and Contrast how these two small communities (LDS and Gays) make the world a better place. One espousing love door to door around the globe-preaching peace. While the other seeks to serve it's own cause and perpetuate (an oxymoron) itself by calling the other hateful and bigoted. A classic example of a the old football strategy: The best defense is a good offense.

  • Proposition 8
    July 11, 2009 9:09 p.m.

    California's Prop 8 was overwhelmingly rejected by African Americans and Hispanics. Why is there no gay backlash against these groups. It appears that Mormons, arguably even a smaller demographic than LGBTs, is simply being targeted because they're an easy mark. Talk about tolerance of minorities.

  • @ To Visitor and Outsider
    July 11, 2009 9:18 p.m.

    Got along without you before I read your post and I'll get along without you now!!!!
    Stay home----

  • Anonymous
    July 11, 2009 9:37 p.m.

    So, if any mormon couples come on my property, this means I can push them to the ground, restrain them and press charges right?

  • intolerant ignorance
    July 11, 2009 10:29 p.m.


    To the person who commented that those who disagree with how the situation was handled must be gays from California: what intolerant ignorance to believe that only California gays are disturbed by how church security responded to a trespass violation. I am a 7th generation Mormon, served a mission, am heterosexual, supported the Church's position on Prop. 8, and think the men should have left when asked, but I believe the response by church security was inappropriate.

  • To intolerant | 10:29
    July 11, 2009 11:17 p.m.

    Speaking of intolerant -- since you know nothing more than what you read in the paper about how the situation was handled, don't you think your assumptions and conclusions are best characterized as "intolerant ingnorance?"

  • Deliberate Offense
    July 11, 2009 11:32 p.m.

    Homosexual activists and sympathizers talk about "intolerance," but this was an act of intolerance against the LDS church, its teachings, and its members. The two men went to the plaza to offend people. They knew that most of the people there would be LDS and would be offended by their conduct, which is why they did it. It was akin to parading around a Jewish synagogue with a Nazi flag.

    Here is the truth, for any who care to read it:

    “The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such behavior from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature or the seriousness of the practice. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons of God; and Christ’s church denounces it and condemns it so long as men have bodies which can be defiled.” LDS President Spencer W. Kimball

  • Re: Deliberate Offense
    July 12, 2009 12:01 a.m.

    Spencer W. Kimball speaks for the mormon church, not for the nation, not for the world. So quoting his words about the "unholy transgression of homosexuality" means nothing to those of us who aren't mormons.

  • rights and intolerance
    July 12, 2009 12:40 a.m.


    Property rights were used to justify discrimination against blacks throughout much of American history. Blacks were considered trespassing when they demanded equal access to restaurants, hotels, drinking fountains, and voting booths. Black slaves were considered property, and slavery and segregation continued until our nation recognized that property rights cannot be a justification for injustice.

    The Salt Lake police spokesperson gave an example of a restaurant owner asking someone to leave. However, a restaurant owner is not allowed to handcuff and to push someone to the floor who refuses to leave.

  • John Pack Lambert
    July 12, 2009 12:49 a.m.

    I think it is just terrible. Terrible. The homosexual is now coming onto our private property. Property that was purchased using the freely given tithes of our fellow brethren and sistren. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That is just how I feel at this time. Later, I might change my mind.

  • Indiana
    July 12, 2009 7:01 a.m.

    Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Great big kudos to the security guard and SLPD for doing what is right. For a hetero couple to hug and kiss and display NATURAL affection is one thing, but the over message-sending of kissing and bumping and grinding is UNNATURAL and God loving people everywhere need to say enough is enough... Thank GOd I belong to a Church not afraid to stand and be counted.

  • No discrimination
    July 12, 2009 7:18 a.m.

    This is not a matter of discrimination!! My daughter and her boyfriend were attending an event on Temple Square where they were hugging and kissing. They were also asked to please stop because PDA was unacceptable. If you don't like what the property owner's rules, don't go there.

  • Go Security!
    July 12, 2009 9:04 a.m.

    Finally someone stands up for morals! Even better is the couple insisted they shouldn't have to stop and wouldn't leave, so they get arrested! This is great!

    Good for church security and the SLPD.

  • Chris
    July 12, 2009 1:58 p.m.

    A couple of points. First, the News article leaves out some important information. The incident took place at around 10:30 on a weeknight. If the couple was really looking to make a statement they could have picked a much better time. The News also fails to mention that one of the two was forced to the ground and both were cuffed. They were obviously not going anywhere, the police could have been called and no physical force would have been needed. Second, I'm sure the church as plenty of security film of the incident, if there was "bumping and grinding" as some have said it would be easy to confirm with that film.

    Contrary to many member's view, you are not the center of the universe and everything that happens in this world isn't an attack on you or your "beliefs." Some people just want to live their lives, to love and be loved.

  • To Chris | 1:58
    July 12, 2009 3:42 p.m.

    "Some people just want to live their lives, to love and be loved."

    Yes, we Mormons do. So why can't the LGBT community just leave us alone to do so?

  • What happend to respect?
    July 12, 2009 4:05 p.m.

    Didn't your mama ever teach you to mind your manners when you went to visit a friends house?

    If my childs friends behaved in an inappropriate way at my house, they would be told to stop and would not be invited back.






  • hippocrites
    July 12, 2009 6:13 p.m.

    What would Jesus have done? There's a lot of anger and hate in these comments. You are not true followers of Him.

  • re: hippocrites
    July 12, 2009 10:13 p.m.

    While I'm not sure what a "hippocrite" is, I can tell you exactly what Jesus would do. He would tell them to "go and sin no more," and He would expect them to follow the law peacefully - which means leaving the plaza when asked, and not shouting profanities at the guard who was only doing his job.

  • Bill
    July 12, 2009 11:34 p.m.

    PDA is not permitted on the property. It is not permitted on any Church Property at any time. Smokinging, drinking, PDA, and other activities the Church feels is inappropriate the individuals will be asked to stop or to leave the premises. That is a fact.

    This has nothing to do with civil rights, gay rights or love, it has to do with property rights, especially private property. Most LDS members for the most part are very tolerant and will say very little to anyone even if they are displaying unwanted acts. The chapels do not have security guards present all the time.

    This was private property, they were asked to leave. That is the end of the story. Anyone who disagrees with that are totally wrong. For the person who says no to LDS Missionaries repeatedly needs to understand that people move and the missionaries only serve for two years. They are only in an area for six months maximum in most cases and less in others. They leave and go on to the next house. Maybe you really should welcome them in sometime. They really are quite human.

  • Casting stones
    July 13, 2009 12:10 a.m.

    Hey! until god has found these people guilty of sin it not up to any Mormon to cast stones at them. It is God who will decide which of us he wants to do away with.... So he who is with out sin cast the first stone.

  • BobP
    July 13, 2009 7:45 a.m.

    In my more "in your face days" I had a bumper sticker that said "if you don't like the way I drive, get off of my sidewalk".

    In essence these two activists were doing the same thing. They were being "in your face" and obnoxious about they public displays of homosexual affection. When asked to leave, they objected and got evicted.

    I am active LDS and still hold to "my place, my rules. If you don't like them - go away.

  • Anonymous
    July 13, 2009 9:31 a.m.

    This is silly. I am active LDS, too. So what? This is wrong. The Church's security made a big mistake here because they lack good sense and judgment.

    Gen.27:26
    And his father Isaac said unto him, Come near now, and kiss me, my son.

    Gen 29:13
    And it came to pass, when Laban heard the tidings of Jacob his sister’s son, that he ran to meet him, and embraced him, and kissed him, and brought him to his house.

    Song.1:2
    Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.

    Gen.33:4
    And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept.

    Ex.4:27
    And the Lord said to Aaron, Go into the wilderness to meet Moses. And he went, and met him in the amount of God, and kissed him.

    Rom.16:16
    Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.

    1Cor. 16:20
    All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another with an holy kiss. (2 Cor.13:12; 1Thes.5:26; 1Pet.5:14)

  • Desert Rat
    July 13, 2009 9:47 a.m.

    At a macro level, people being asked to leave private property, this was fine.

    What bothers me is the handcuffing by the Church rent-a-cops. That is beyond accpetable. I expect that alone will generate a lawsuit that the Church will and should lose. They clearly overstepped their authority.

  • To Outsider | 4:38
    July 13, 2009 10:42 a.m.

    I'm glad you don't live here either. Wow, you are an angry and confused person.

  • To It happens | 4:54
    July 13, 2009 10:44 a.m.

    Well, if your neighbors are trespassing on your property and won't leave after you asked them too then you should call the cops. Common sense.

  • To Anonymous | 9:37
    July 13, 2009 10:48 a.m.

    You forgot the part where you ask them politely to leave first. Most LDS couples have more common sense than the gay couple in the article and would leave when asked.

  • Classic
    July 13, 2009 11:02 a.m.

    Some of the comments are so laughable. A gay couple breaks the law and is arrested. Now the LDS Church is the villain. There are some really confused people in this world. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see through this.

  • JJ
    July 13, 2009 11:06 a.m.

    If this type of intolerance continues I think the LDS Church should just close the plaza. If people can't be respectful towards others wishes on their own private property then close it off. Obviously the citizens of SLC are to immature to be allowed to pass though the area.

  • Queezy...
    July 13, 2009 11:35 a.m.

    Leave the religion at the door... The sight of two people of the same sex kissing and holding hand makes me queezy....who's with me?

  • Lame
    July 13, 2009 11:49 a.m.

    Chris | 5:40 a.m. July 11, 2009

    I know you think you are making some sort of point - what that point is, none of us will ever know.

  • Native Utahn
    July 13, 2009 12:01 p.m.

    It seems to me there will be never be peace and unity in this most religiously divided of states until this organization ceases to stop treating it as their own private kingdom and it's citizens as their own personal subjects.

  • Who will shop there?
    July 13, 2009 12:20 p.m.

    Not great advertising for the upcoming City Creek Center Mall across the street.

  • John Pack Lambert
    July 13, 2009 12:39 p.m.

    I again, as I have many times before, call for a restricted name use policy.
    I did not make the 12:49 AM comment on July 12th. I was in bed at that point since it was 2:49 then.
    I know some people accuse me of being a liar or a winer, but I do not appreciate people stealing my identity.
    Have I ever stated I think "the homosexual" should be banned from property. I try to even avoid this phrase, for it is a false one. Homosexual describes behavior not a state of being.
    While people struggle with same-gender attraction, that does not make them homosexual.
    I really do not appreciate whoever is stealing my name and trying to force false words into my mouth.
    My only consolation is that they do it in ways that are so obviously out of line.
    It is amazing to me how meanspirited some of the comments are here.

  • RE: Native Utahn
    July 13, 2009 12:42 p.m.

    So Native Utahn...if brokeback mountain were goin' on in your front yard and you asked them to leave and they didn't you wouldn't call the cops?

    This isn't a gay rights issue but a private property issue. If you don't leave when asked to you can be charged with trespassing.

    And by the way, the main street plaza is the Church's own "private kingdom". That's the beauty of property rights.

  • Yvonne
    July 13, 2009 12:43 p.m.

    These men were obviously trying to get on the news, they were actually making out heavily, no peck on the cheek. The plaza is a place that is full of families, many with small children. Most people do not want their children exposed to homosexual behaviors, especially when they are very young. The security guards asked the men to leave, they refused and became beligerant. Only then were they handcuffed and police called. The Homosexual agenda has shown their true colors already, with vandalism and violence. They are the ones who are trying to force their views on everyone else. They went to an LDS owned property and began very inappropriate behavior to try to force their views on the people there. Religious freedom is under attack, and the militant homosexuals areleading the charge.

  • Stone caster
    July 13, 2009 12:56 p.m.

    I agree that THE church can set the rules on Their property.

    Though, Outsider @ 4:38 p.m. on July 11, 2009 said it best,"... You are so intolerant of anything that does not conform to your really weird beliefs, you will do anything to rid yourselves of anyone you deem unworthy." ... "I am just a man who is embarassed to know that there is a place where religion has warped so many people."

    Funny things happen when one group has been in power for so long it warps their collective perspective. The outlandish and juvenile behavior of the so-called oppressed and/or minority is equally shameful.

    Blind conformity and willing anti-social behavior are the ultimate sins.

  • s.a.
    July 13, 2009 1:06 p.m.

    It is private property. It had nothing to do with the fact that these men were gay. They were asked to leave. And they didn't. ANd then they started using profanity. Security was allowed to act the way they did. It's not about these people being gay. I hope that security would do the same thing if they saw two heterosexuals engaging in the same disruptive behavior. It's WHAT they were doing, not who they were.

  • sutton
    July 13, 2009 1:14 p.m.

    S. A first of all how do you know they used profanities???

    Secondly... I have no problem with the church kicking these men off their property. I do though have a problem with the church lying... Hetero couples kiss, hold hands, ect... all the time, with "NO" issues what-so-ever and anyone who says otherwise has their pants on fire.

    I would have had more respect for the church if they would have just said we don't allow Homosexual behavior... at least it's honest.

  • ktothel
    July 13, 2009 1:21 p.m.

    RE: sutton

    We know they used profanity because that's what the statement from the Church spokesman said. Did you not read the article?

  • KtotheL
    July 13, 2009 1:27 p.m.

    RE: John Pack Lambert

    Sorry that people have been using your name, but you kinda made it really easy. Sometimes a little anonymity when posting is a good idea....just sayin'

  • sa
    July 13, 2009 1:48 p.m.

    re: sutton

    the article says they used profanities. i didnt say the church does kick heterosexuals off the property. i just said that i would support that too! not too many people are that big of fans of pda.

  • Re: Yvonne
    July 13, 2009 2:15 p.m.

    Great comment. Glad my children where not around.

  • Arizona
    July 13, 2009 4:46 p.m.

    Well, OF COURSE it was staged!

    They were filming for Bruno II.

  • To "To hey tourist"
    July 13, 2009 8:28 p.m.

    You really think people actually want to visit Utah??!?!?! Hahahaha! Come on! You're joking. Right? Joking?

  • Jazz fan
    July 13, 2009 9:06 p.m.

    They were Laker fans! lol

  • Dear Miind Readers
    July 14, 2009 4:23 a.m.

    I read the story several times and nowhere does it say they were pushed to the ground. It also doesn't state in the article how affectionate they were. As a former missionary serving at Temple Square I had to ask on a number of occasions for people to leave who where getting a little too excessive in their display of affection. It was way beyong a kiss and a hug. There is a time and a place for such affection. IT is private property and the Church has its standards as to what it appropriate on their property. I would have the same rights on my property if two gays came onto my property and started doing that. Such behavior by a gay person violates those standards.

    I have dealt with people similar to this as a school administrator. You make a simple request for a student to move on to class or they will be late and they stop and argue and complain, and become belligerent. Then they challenge you to do something to justify their actions.

  • Anonymous
    July 14, 2009 10:55 a.m.

    To Dear Miind Readers,

    "There is a time and a place for such affection. IT is private property and the Church has its standards as to what it appropriate on their property. I would have the same rights on my property if two gays came onto my property and started doing that."

    Do you openly invite the general public to come and visit your property? No. But the Church DOES! The Church actively advertises for people to come to Temple Square! The Church has missionaries - like you used to be - who solicit people to come in and look around!

    If your Church is going to welcome people and solicit people and invite people onto their property, you are going to have to tolerate a wide variety of behaviors from those people.

    If you don't like all the "bad behavior", then STOP RECRUITING AND INVITING AND SOLICITING PEOPLE TO COME ONTO YOUR PROPERTY!

  • ask yourselves ...
    July 14, 2009 4:46 p.m.

    Why don't we see stories about the Mormons going to gathering places for Gays? Does it happen?

    Why aren't the Mormons publishing the names and location of individual supporters of Gay lifestyles?

    Do the Mormons claim the members are perfect in following it's teachings?

    Did these 2 young men not realize they were on temple square in SLC? How can ANYone in SLC possibly not know the Mormons position on basic issues?

    Did the Security Guards say "Gays are not allowed to kiss here?"

    Has anyone ever noticed the standards the Mormons expect of their own members at other properties (BYU campus', meetinghouses, etc)?

    How did this situation move from "please leave" to "you're under arrest?"

    If Gays hate the Mormons so much why were they there? If my wife and I were on someone's property that I knew didn't like my lifestyle, I wouldn't feel like kissing. I'd walk around it.

    If Mormons are so old fashioned, why is it one of the fastest growing religions in the world?

    Just take a few minutes and ask yourself a few of these questions. Do a little research...

  • Anonymous
    July 14, 2009 5:19 p.m.

    To ask yourselves ...,

    "Why don't we see stories about the Mormons going to gathering places for Gays? Does it happen?"

    Because gays are not trying to oppress Mormons with uncivil legislation. Duh.

    "Why aren't the Mormons publishing the names and location of individual supporters of Gay lifestyles?"

    They just excommunicate them or send them to shock therapy to "un-gay" them!

    "If Gays hate the Mormons so much why were they there? If my wife and I were on someone's property that I knew didn't like my lifestyle, I wouldn't feel like kissing. I'd walk around it."

    If your wife and you went onto a PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE that had been designated as a PUBLIC EASEMENT for 150 years, and is the shortest route through a part of the city... well, you would go through it! Your comparison is stupid. Are you?

  • Haven't read all the Comments
    July 14, 2009 5:40 p.m.

    But Myself and a friend of mine were filming a home video and being a little loud and "irreverant" by the reflection pond inbetween the temple and the JS memorial building and the same thing happened to us. We were asked to leave, argued and got handcuffed and cited.

    IMO many posted here are making this more of an issue than it is. There was no hate intended and nothing done wrong on the part of the security guards.

    I have close friends who work security on the church grounds and these things happen EVERY day. Why is this a big deal? Because the Gay community makes it one. Check yourselves and start practicing the "stop the hate" that you preach.

  • To Anonymous @ 5:19 pm
    July 14, 2009 5:44 p.m.

    The comparison was definitely not stupid. It was very rude to say that.

    By default, you are also saying that Mormons are trying to oppress gays with uncivil legislation. They are NOT! They are defending traditional marriage. Family is one of the most important things. Homosexuality causes the family to be nonexistent. I would definitely not want to be raised by a gay couple. Think of the harassment and ridicule a child would face.

    We need to preserve the family in it's true form.

  • Re: Anonymous | 10:55 a.m.
    July 15, 2009 8:54 a.m.

    "If your Church is going to welcome people and solicit people and invite people onto their property, you are going to have to tolerate a wide variety of behaviors from those people."

    Guess what? Public and national parks, libraries, grocery stores, restaurants, even gas stations, all invite people to come onto their private property, and yet they all have rules of conduct that must be followed while on that property. If you don't follow the rules, they'll ask you to leave, the same as this couple was asked to leave when they didn't follow the rules of etiquette expected on LDS church property.

    You don't expect libraries to close their doors to the public just because they expect you to keep your voice down while inside, and you don't get huffy when gas stations demand that you wear shoes and a shirt when you go inside, so why are you complaining about this? There's absolutely no difference. They're all organizations that own private property that is open to the public so long as the public follows basic rules of conduct while visiting the property.

  • it isn't working
    July 15, 2009 9:36 a.m.

    Since prop 8 passed the gay agendaists have been grating, annoying, hateful and flamboyant. Guess what its gotten them. Support for gay marriage has dropped 10 points. Keep it up.

  • Anonymous
    July 15, 2009 10:07 a.m.

    The rules of conduct are clearly posted in National Parks and Libraries.

    Show me a National Park that will kick you out and cite you for kissing!

    Show me a Library that will kick you out for holding hands!

    Guess what? Your argument is flawed, just like your bigoted homophobia! I only hope some day your blinders come off and you understand the full weight and import of the fascism in which you are trapped!

  • RE: Anonymous @ 10:07 am
    July 15, 2009 12:23 p.m.

    I don't recall ever being at a library or national park where the rules of conduct were CLEARLY posted. If you live in Salt Lake City and you don't know the standards of the Church, then you must be either very closed-minded or stupid.

    Guess what? Your argument is flawed!

  • anonymous
    July 15, 2009 1:01 p.m.

    to: Anthony | 2:19 a.m. July 11, 2009
    "You presume, simply because they were gay, that they were trying to "stir something up" and "get on the news"? Isn't that somewhat of a narrow minded assumption?"

    what a pathetic argument. yes, it was done intentionally. if gay man throw a mormn out of his retaurant, do you think there would be so much coverage? no. the owner would say it was his property and that the mormon was being inappropriate because he didn't agree with his views. there is nothing big about this incident. it is a horrible excuse to turn two con artists into some kind of victims just because they are gay. gays are always saying how notmal they are, well fine. if they are capable of being decent, they are also capable of being indecent. that was the case here.

  • Re: Anonymous 10:07 a.m.
    July 15, 2009 1:45 p.m.

    Could you please tell me why non-members feel the constant need to explain to Mormons how they need to wake up and realize how wrong the church is about everything? Whenever somebody who isn't LDS finds out that I am, they feel the great urge to sit me down and tell me to read my church's history and find out the truth, just like you're doing.

    Well, I've read the history and I've listened to all the arguments anybody can come up with, and I have found out the truth for myself. That's precisely why I am a member.

  • Touche
    July 15, 2009 5:12 p.m.

    To Re: Anonymous 10:07 a.m. | 1:45 p.m.,

    Coul YOU please tell me why LDS MEMBERS feel the constant need to explain to non-Mormons how they need to repent and realize how wrong their churches ALL are? Whenever somebody who IS LDS finds out that I am NOT, they feel the great urge to sit me down and tell me to read the Book of Mormon (fiction) and PRAY about it!

    Well, I'VE read the Book of Mormon AND the history and I've listened to all the arguments anybody can come up with, and I have found out the truth for myself. THAT'S PRECISELY WHY I AM NOT A MEMBER!

  • One Human Family
    July 15, 2009 7:59 p.m.

    Wow, there sure is a lot of judgement and hatred towards gay people in these comments! We don't know the whole story, so stop making judgements on what happened.

    If the security guards harrassed this gay couple for a simple kiss on the cheek, then shame on the security guards. If the gay couple was doing something that would also get a heterosexual couple harrassed, then shame on the gay couple.

  • Re: Touche
    July 15, 2009 9:05 p.m.

    Nobody's saying you have to become a member. Your beliefs are between you and God. But there's a fundamental difference between Mormons suggesting to others that they read the Book of Mormon and study it out for themselves and non-members doing their best to sway members from their testimonies, and that is this: LDS members are trying to build people up by giving them the greatest gift we members have to offer. They're trying to bring love and joy and every good thing into the other person's life. The people who come out and make comments like the ones I was referring to are only trying to tear down the people they're talking to, and to bring them misery and contention.

    The LDS church does NOT believe that all other churches are entirely wrong about everything. That's not even close to what we believe. We believe that other churches have a lot of wonderful things about them, and that they have some very important truths to teach. But people will hear what they want to hear, and insist it's the truth when it's not.

  • No Longer in SLC
    July 23, 2009 5:23 p.m.

    I'm a gay Mormon and lived in Utah for a time during college years. It's no secret that the LDS church finds any GLBT activity or PDA inappropriate. Certainly I'm not shocked when anyone gives anyone a peck on the cheek, some people were, it's private property. Although I'm all for equal rights, and can understand why the gay couple was upset, private property is not the venue for such arguments. Both sides overreacted. It's hard to deny the humor in the arrest and later with the protest, but in all honesty it is a shameful way for the GLBT community to react and does not represent the whole as rational, decent, human beings. This is not the higher road to equal rights. Such a protest should have taken place at the capital building, in a political arena, not on private property. Just as GLBT should have equal rights, so should the LDS have the right to determine appropriate behavior on their own property. 'Nuff said.

  • Refused?
    Nov. 30, 2009 12:24 p.m.

    How could they leave, if they were detained and handcuffed? Why arrest, if they never been issued a tresspass warning before?